2006 PLP 913 (YLR)

SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.

By judgment dated 4-10-2000 the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha has enhanced the quantum of compensation on a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which judgment has been assailed through this appeal.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that while revising and enhancing the compensation, the learned reference Court has not kept in view the criteria and principles governing the determination of compensation to be paid for the acquired land. It is contended that the evidence relied upon by the Court could not be made basis for enhancement of compensation as the sale-deeds (Exh.A-1 to Exh.A-3) were of small chunks of land, value whereof could not be equated with that of the acquired land. The learned counsel for the respondents/landowners has supported the judgment impugned. It is contended by him that the reference Court has proceeded strictly on the basis of the evidence and the judgment and decree is in conformity with the principles governing the fixation of compensation.

3. The respective contentions have been considered in the light of the evidence on the record.

4. Land measuring 10 Kanals, 16 Marlas owned by the respondents was acquired for the use of the appellant/ company vide Notification dated 25-4-1992 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The landowners claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000 per Marla due to its situation and location which was closed to the 'Abadi Deh' and meant for construction purposes. However, ignoring the claim of the land-owners of the Land Acquisition Collector fixed the compensation of the land at Rs.40,000 per Acre vide award dated 15-1-1995. That was the estimate of cost of land given by the District Collector. Before the learned Senior Civil Judge who was seized of the reference, Sher Muhammad respondent appeared as A.W.1 who gave description of the land, its vicinity and surroundings and deposed that the price of the land in the past was Rs.10,000 per Marla which had increased to Rs.25,000/ Rs.30,000 per Marla. He produced sale-deeds Exh.A-1, Exh.A-2 and Exh.A-3 to support his assertion. As against that Muhammad Yasin, an employee of the appellant-Company appeared as D:W.1. The reference Court has appreciated the evidence led by the parties and while relying upon the evidence produced by the respondents, noting that the acquired land was situated near the metalled road (Bhalwal to Sargodha) and was near the municipal limits and a 'Ghee' and Cooking Mills was situated in its neighbourhood has fixed the quantum of compensation. It was observed that sale-deed Exh.A-1 related to the land from which Gas Pipeline had been laid. Since no cogent evidence had been produced as against the evidence led by the respondents, the compensation was enhanced and fixed by the reference Court at Rs.10,000 per Marla. It may be mentioned that in Murad Khan through his widow and 13 others v. Land Acquisition Collector, Peshawar and another (1999 SCMR 1647) matters relevant and germane to the determination of compensation were elaborately discussed and laid down. That judgment is since then being followed and used for guidance in making determination of compensation. Reference may be made to Province of Punjab through Collector, Attock v. Engr. Jamil Ahmad Malik and others (2000 SCMR 870). In Province of Sindh through Collector of District Dadu and others v. Ramzan and others (PLD 2004 SC 512). It was observed that "consideration of market value at the time of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was merely one of the modes for ascertaining the market value and was not absolute yardstick for assessment of compensation. Numerous matters to be considered for determining compensation were elaborately laid down by this Court in Murad Khan's case (1999 SCMR 1647) which was again relied upon in Nisar Ahmed's case (PLD 2002 SC 25). The crux of the matter is that mere classification or nature of land may be taken as relevant consideration but not as absolute one. An area may be 'Banjar' or 'Barani' but its market value may be tremendously high because of its location, neighbourhood, potentiality or other benefits. All these factors, therefore, cannot be ignored." In the present case the statement of Sher Muhammad A.W.1 as to the location, situation, vicinity, neighbourhood and potential value of the land has remained unrebutted through any cogent evidence. The Court was, thus, justified to rely upon the same and to fix the compensation accordingly, which is consistent with the criteria and the yardstick laid down by the Superior Courts. We, therefore, find no valid justification to take a different view of the matter than has been taken by the reference Court. As a result of the above, the appeal is without merit, which is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. F.M./L-135/L Appeal dismissed.